Compare StocksNVDA vs TER

NVIDIA Corporation (NVDA) vs Teradyne, Inc. (TER): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-06-19, NVDA is overvalued at $211, with a DCF intrinsic value of $163 and a margin of safety of -29%. TER is overvalued at $438, with an intrinsic value of $267 and a margin of safety of -64%. Of the two, NVDA has the wider margin of safety.

NVDA
NVIDIA Corporation
$210.69
VS
TER
Teradyne, Inc.
$437.92

Rewards

NVDA
  • NVIDIA Corporation has maintained ROIC above 10% for 4 consecutive years, suggesting solid business economics.
  • Gross margin of 74.1% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
  • Free cash flow has grown at a 193.9% CAGR over the past 4 years, demonstrating strong earnings power growth.
TER
  • Teradyne, Inc. has maintained ROIC above 15% for 4 consecutive years, indicating a durable competitive advantage.
  • Teradyne, Inc. scores 72/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with roic consistency as the strongest competitive dimension.
  • Altman Z-Score of 14.86 indicates very low bankruptcy risk — the company is firmly in the safe zone.

Risks

NVDA
  • FCF yield of 1.9% is below 3%, meaning the market is pricing in substantial future growth to justify the current price.
  • Beneish M-Score of -1.06 flags financial patterns consistent with potential earnings manipulation — warrants further investigation.
  • 39 insider sales with no purchases over the past 12 months — a persistent pattern of insider selling.
TER
  • Buybacks have been poorly timed — 3 out of 4 years involved repurchases at relatively expensive valuations.
  • FCF yield of 0.7% is below 3%, meaning the market is pricing in substantial future growth to justify the current price.
  • Trailing P/E of 81.1x is 117% above the historical average of 37.3x — the stock trades at a premium to its own history.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
NVDA
TER
Valuation
$96.68B
Free Cash Flow
$450.41M
1.89%
FCF Yield
0.66%
32.26
Trailing P/E
81.10
16.55
Forward P/E
46.08
Quality & Moat
63.06%
ROIC
34.88%
114.29%
ROE
28.75%
74.14%
Gross Margin
58.70%
0.64
PEG Ratio
1.62
Balance Sheet Safety
Net cash
Net Debt / Equity
Net cash
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
-0.24
Net Debt / EBITDA
-0.14
0.02%
Dividend Yield
0.13%
NVDA: 10Ties: 1TER: 1
NVDATER

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
NVDA

Price ÷ Earnings Per Share — how many years of current earnings you're paying for at today's price. Lower P/E may indicate undervaluation. The dashed forward point is the forward P/E — today's price ÷ analyst consensus EPS.

TER

Price ÷ Earnings Per Share — how many years of current earnings you're paying for at today's price. Lower P/E may indicate undervaluation. The dashed forward point is the forward P/E — today's price ÷ analyst consensus EPS.

Price ÷ Earnings Per Share — how many years of current earnings you're paying for at today's price. Lower P/E may indicate undervaluation. The dashed forward point is the forward P/E — today's price ÷ analyst consensus EPS.

$1 Retained Earnings Test

Learn more →
NVDA
$17.68
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$220.50B
Δ Market Cap
+$3.90T
Buffett's "$1 Test": For every $1 of earnings retained, has management created at least $1 of market value?
> $1 created per $1 retained = Value Creator · < $1 created = Value Destroyer
TER
$12.54
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$1.32B
Δ Market Cap
+$16.61B
Buffett's "$1 Test": For every $1 of earnings retained, has management created at least $1 of market value?
> $1 created per $1 retained = Value Creator · < $1 created = Value Destroyer

Buffett's "$1 Test": For every $1 of earnings retained, has management created at least $1 of market value?
> $1 created per $1 retained = Value Creator · < $1 created = Value Destroyer

Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Analysis

Learn more →
NVDA
44.3% Margin of Safety
Price is 44.3% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $210.69
Fair Value: $378.18
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
TER
62.3% Overvalued
Price is 62.3% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $437.92
Fair Value: $269.87
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
NVDA

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $211?

+17.9%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +20.8%

The market implies +17.9% Owner Earnings growth, below historical trends — potential opportunity.

Standard FCF implies a more demanding +20.8%, reflecting heavy growth investment expected to generate future returns.

TER

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $438?

+32.9%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +35.9%

The market implies +32.9% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.

Standard FCF implies a demanding +35.9%, reflecting heavy growth investment.

Economic Moat Score

Learn more →
NVDA
69/100
Narrow Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Narrow moat with roic consistency as the key competitive advantage. Improving revenue predictability would strengthen the moat.

Composite score measuring competitive advantage durability across four dimensions: returns above cost of capital, pricing power stability, revenue predictability, and capital efficiency. Based on 4 years of fundamental data.
TER
72/100
Wide Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Wide moat driven primarily by roic consistency. Revenue Predictability is the area most vulnerable to competitive pressure.

Composite score measuring competitive advantage durability across four dimensions: returns above cost of capital, pricing power stability, revenue predictability, and capital efficiency. Based on 4 years of fundamental data.

Forensic Accounting

Learn more →
NVDA
-1.06
Likely Manipulator
Above -1.78 = likely manipulator · -2.22 to -1.78 = grey zone

M-Score Trend

Beneish's 8-variable model estimates the probability of earnings manipulation. An M-Score above -1.78 signals elevated risk — companies in this range have historically been 3-5× more likely to be manipulating earnings. Scores between -2.22 and -1.78 fall in a grey zone warranting further investigation.
TER
-2.76
Unlikely Manipulator
Above -1.78 = likely manipulator · -2.22 to -1.78 = grey zone

M-Score Trend

Beneish's 8-variable model estimates the probability of earnings manipulation. An M-Score above -1.78 signals elevated risk — companies in this range have historically been 3-5× more likely to be manipulating earnings. Scores between -2.22 and -1.78 fall in a grey zone warranting further investigation.

Beneish's 8-variable model estimates the probability of earnings manipulation. An M-Score above -1.78 signals elevated risk — companies in this range have historically been 3-5× more likely to be manipulating earnings. Scores between -2.22 and -1.78 fall in a grey zone warranting further investigation.

Ownership Breakdown

Learn more →
NVDA
Insiders 4.0%Institutions 70.9%Retail & Other 25.1%
No. of Institutional Holders7,556
High insider ownership aligns management incentives with shareholders — a key signal in Buffett-style analysis. Institutional concentration can indicate smart-money conviction but also crowding risk.
TER
Insiders 0.3%Institutions 96.5%Retail & Other 3.2%
No. of Institutional Holders1,693
High insider ownership aligns management incentives with shareholders — a key signal in Buffett-style analysis. Institutional concentration can indicate smart-money conviction but also crowding risk.

High insider ownership aligns management incentives with shareholders. Institutional concentration can indicate smart-money conviction but also crowding risk.

Insider Buying Activity

Learn more →
NVDA
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
No open market insider purchases found.
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
TER
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
No open market insider purchases found.
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises

Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises.

Insider Selling Activity

Learn more →
NVDA
1
Sells (3M)
39
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $1.09B
DABIRI JOHN O
Director
$133,750
@ $214.00 · 2026-05-27
ROBERTSON DONALD F JR
Officer
$942,944
@ $174.75 · 2026-03-20
SHAH AARTI S
Director
$3.36M
@ $176.71 · 2026-03-19
DABIRI JOHN O
Director
$555,440
@ $184.90 · 2026-03-13
ROBERTSON DONALD F JR
Officer
$15.19M
@ $189.85 · 2026-01-02
ROBERTSON DONALD F JR
Officer
$4.43M
@ $179.98 · 2025-12-19
DABIRI JOHN O
Director
$112,317
@ $179.42 · 2025-11-24
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$5.20M
@ $207.91 · 2025-10-29
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$23.56M
@ $188.47 · 2025-10-28
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$40.73M
@ $181.04 · 2025-10-23
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$41.06M
@ $182.48 · 2025-10-20
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$41.34M
@ $183.73 · 2025-10-15
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$42.89M
@ $190.60 · 2025-10-10
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$42.05M
@ $186.89 · 2025-10-07
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$42.09M
@ $187.08 · 2025-10-02
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$40.23M
@ $178.82 · 2025-09-29
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$40.21M
@ $178.69 · 2025-09-24
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$39.18M
@ $174.14 · 2025-09-19
ROBERTSON DONALD F JR
Officer
$617,298
@ $176.37 · 2025-09-19
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$39.75M
@ $176.66 · 2025-09-16
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$39.28M
@ $174.59 · 2025-09-11
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$38.01M
@ $168.95 · 2025-09-08
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$38.61M
@ $171.60 · 2025-09-03
HUDSON BEACH DAWN E
Director
$15.38M
@ $170.90 · 2025-09-03
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$27.12M
@ $180.79 · 2025-08-15
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$40.96M
@ $182.04 · 2025-08-13
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$40.66M
@ $180.70 · 2025-08-08
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$39.78M
@ $176.80 · 2025-08-05
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$40.18M
@ $178.58 · 2025-07-31
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$39.16M
@ $174.02 · 2025-07-28
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$38.22M
@ $169.87 · 2025-07-23
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$38.71M
@ $172.05 · 2025-07-18
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$37.59M
@ $167.08 · 2025-07-15
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$36.43M
@ $161.91 · 2025-07-10
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$35.55M
@ $158.02 · 2025-07-07
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$35.16M
@ $156.27 · 2025-07-01
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$30.47M
@ $152.33 · 2025-06-26
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$14.40M
@ $144.04 · 2025-06-23
ROBERTSON DONALD F JR
Officer
$646,469
@ $143.66 · 2025-06-20
BURGESS ROBERT KENNETH
Director
$6.74M
@ $134.82 · 2025-05-30
DABIRI JOHN O
Director
$91,608
@ $138.80 · 2025-05-30
KRESS COLETTE M.
Chief Financial Officer
$7.79M
@ $116.83 · 2025-03-21
ROBERTSON DONALD F JR
Officer
$525,585
@ $116.80 · 2025-03-21
SHAH AARTI S
Director
$2.37M
@ $118.42 · 2025-03-20
BURGESS ROBERT KENNETH
Director
$6.16M
@ $115.49 · 2025-03-13
DABIRI JOHN O
Director
$292,930
@ $110.00 · 2025-03-10
KRESS COLETTE M.
Chief Financial Officer
$9.03M
@ $135.40 · 2024-12-13
ROBERTSON DONALD F JR
Officer
$608,775
@ $135.28 · 2024-12-13
DABIRI JOHN O
Director
$101,672
@ $142.00 · 2024-11-25
KRESS COLETTE M.
Chief Financial Officer
$7.77M
@ $116.59 · 2024-09-20
ROBERTSON DONALD F JR
Officer
$524,293
@ $116.51 · 2024-09-20
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$28.55M
@ $118.97 · 2024-09-13
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
TER
9
Sells (3M)
26
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $6.75M
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$61,747
@ $369.74 · 2026-06-02
POULIN SHANNON JOHN
Officer
$581,013
@ $349.17 · 2026-05-22
MATZ MARILYN
Director
$140,000
@ $350.00 · 2026-05-21
SMITH GREGORY STEPHEN
Chief Executive Officer
$2.91M
@ $338.98 · 2026-05-15
MATZ MARILYN
Director
$271,184
@ $338.98 · 2026-05-15
DRISCOLL RYAN E
General Counsel
$256,768
@ $377.60 · 2026-05-07
MILLS REGAN
Officer
$5,475
@ $342.19 · 2026-04-08
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$195,125
@ $312.20 · 2026-04-06
MILLS REGAN
Officer
$73,302
@ $290.88 · 2026-04-02
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$187,000
@ $299.20 · 2026-03-05
MILLS REGAN
Officer
$262,302
@ $332.87 · 2026-02-25
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$166,862
@ $266.98 · 2026-02-05
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$132,406
@ $211.85 · 2026-01-05
SMITH GREGORY STEPHEN
Chief Executive Officer
$223,051
@ $201.31 · 2025-12-12
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$125,000
@ $200.00 · 2025-12-05
SMITH GREGORY STEPHEN
Chief Executive Officer
$199,662
@ $180.20 · 2025-11-12
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$110,656
@ $177.05 · 2025-11-05
SMITH GREGORY STEPHEN
Chief Executive Officer
$160,926
@ $145.24 · 2025-10-10
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$92,438
@ $147.90 · 2025-10-06
SMITH GREGORY STEPHEN
Chief Executive Officer
$70,020
@ $126.39 · 2025-09-22
SMITH GREGORY STEPHEN
Chief Executive Officer
$63,710
@ $115.00 · 2025-09-12
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$75,038
@ $120.06 · 2025-09-05
SMITH GREGORY STEPHEN
Chief Executive Officer
$58,724
@ $106.00 · 2025-08-12
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$66,250
@ $106.00 · 2025-08-05
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$198,244
@ $105.73 · 2025-07-30
SMITH GREGORY STEPHEN
Chief Executive Officer
$58,574
@ $105.73 · 2025-07-30
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$69,350
@ $110.96 · 2025-03-03
BURNS RICHARD JOHN
Officer
$49,613
@ $111.49 · 2025-02-04
MEHTA SANJAY
Chief Financial Officer
$154,302
@ $111.49 · 2025-02-04
DRISCOLL RYAN E
General Counsel
$24,082
@ $111.49 · 2025-02-04
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$70,362
@ $112.58 · 2025-02-03
MEHTA SANJAY
Chief Financial Officer
$62,628
@ $102.00 · 2025-01-30
DRISCOLL RYAN E
Officer
$44,574
@ $102.00 · 2025-01-30
BURNS RICHARD JOHN
Officer
$181,523
@ $122.90 · 2025-01-29
MEHTA SANJAY
Chief Financial Officer
$656,040
@ $122.90 · 2025-01-29
DRISCOLL RYAN E
General Counsel
$9,340
@ $122.89 · 2025-01-29
BURNS RICHARD JOHN
Officer
$49,048
@ $120.51 · 2025-01-28
BURNS RICHARD JOHN
Officer
$49,048
@ $120.51 · 2025-01-28
MEHTA SANJAY
Chief Financial Officer
$215,592
@ $120.51 · 2025-01-28
DRISCOLL RYAN E
General Counsel
$12,895
@ $120.51 · 2025-01-28
SMITH GREGORY STEPHEN
Chief Executive Officer
$400,400
@ $130.00 · 2025-01-03
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$79,225
@ $126.76 · 2025-01-02
SMITH GREGORY STEPHEN
Chief Executive Officer
$400,400
@ $130.00 · 2024-12-16
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$68,775
@ $110.04 · 2024-12-02
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$69,638
@ $111.42 · 2024-11-07
BURNS RICHARD JOHN
Officer
$129,548
@ $132.19 · 2024-10-02
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$83,000
@ $132.80 · 2024-10-01
SMITH GREGORY STEPHEN
Chief Executive Officer
$409,024
@ $132.80 · 2024-10-01
SMITH GREGORY STEPHEN
Chief Executive Officer
$400,400
@ $130.00 · 2024-09-11
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$83,431
@ $133.49 · 2024-09-03
MEHTA SANJAY
Chief Financial Officer
$818,718
@ $133.06 · 2024-08-20
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$80,481
@ $128.77 · 2024-08-01
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$92,500
@ $148.00 · 2024-07-01
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives

Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives.

🎭 Mr. Market's Mood

Learn more →
NVDA
FearGreed
😐Neutral(56/100)

"Market is pricing this stock without strong emotion in either direction"

Composite sentiment score based on 6 market signals. Inspired by Buffett's "Mr. Market" allegory — fear = potential opportunity, greed = potential risk. Must be used alongside fundamental analysis, not in isolation.
TER
FearGreed
😏Greed(67/100)

"Market is optimistic — be cautious and ensure you have a margin of safety"

Composite sentiment score based on 6 market signals. Inspired by Buffett's "Mr. Market" allegory — fear = potential opportunity, greed = potential risk. Must be used alongside fundamental analysis, not in isolation.

Composite sentiment score based on market signals. Inspired by Buffett’s "Mr. Market" allegory — fear = potential opportunity, greed = potential risk. Must be used alongside fundamental analysis, not in isolation.

⚖️ Buffett Signal

Learn more →
NVDA
Awaiting DCF Data

The Buffett Signal cross-references market sentiment with DCF valuation. Configure the DCF Analysis above to generate a signal.

DCF Margin of Safety: N/AMr. Market's Mood: Neutral (56)
TER
Awaiting DCF Data

The Buffett Signal cross-references market sentiment with DCF valuation. Configure the DCF Analysis above to generate a signal.

DCF Margin of Safety: N/AMr. Market's Mood: Greed (67)
View NVDA Full AnalysisView TER Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: NVDA vs TER

Is NVIDIA Corporation or Teradyne, Inc. more undervalued in 2026?

Based on our discounted cash flow model, NVDA trades at a -29.0% margin of safety (intrinsic value $163 vs. price $211), compared to TER's -64.0% margin of safety (intrinsic $267 vs. $438).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, NVIDIA Corporation or Teradyne, Inc.?

TER scores 72/100 (Wide moat), while NVDA scores 69/100 (Narrow moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

Which company has better free cash flow, NVIDIA Corporation or Teradyne, Inc.?

NVIDIA Corporation (NVDA) generates a 1.9% free cash flow yield, compared to Teradyne, Inc.'s 0.7%. A higher FCF yield means the business converts more of its market value into cash that can be returned to shareholders or reinvested.

Which stock has higher return on invested capital, NVIDIA Corporation or Teradyne, Inc.?

NVDA earns 63.1% ROIC versus TER's 34.9%. A higher ROIC means the company generates more profit per dollar of capital employed, a hallmark of durable competitive advantage in Buffett-style analysis.

Which dividend is safer, NVIDIA Corporation's or Teradyne, Inc.'s?

TER's dividend earns a safety score of 91/100 (Very Safe), compared to NVDA's 91/100 (Very Safe). TER has raised its dividend for 2 consecutive years.

Does NVIDIA Corporation have accounting red flags?

NVDA's Beneish M-Score of -1.1 flags it as a likely earnings manipulator (above the -1.78 threshold). By contrast, TER scores -2.8, within the normal range. The Beneish model detects aggressive accounting through eight financial ratios.